
Class 


ES-ziT 


Book 


■ N^7 


['KKS(;.\Ti;i) i;y 



LOYAL PUBLICATIONS 

OP 

NATIONAL UNION ASSOCIATION OF OHIO. 



lS<y. 3. 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, JULY, 1863. 



HD^lTTOl^ SIPEEOH: 



OF 



HON. JOHN BROUGH 



PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S RESPONSE 



KELATITK TO THB 



ARREST OF VALLANDIGHAM 



CINCIISri^ATI : 
MOORE, WILSTACH, KEYS (fe CO., Printers, 

SG WEST FOURTH STREET. 
1863. 






f;. 



'1 , C-^^t^- 



-£> 



ADDRESS 



OP 



HON. JOHNBROUGH 

UNION CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF OHIO. 



The following address was delivered at a great convention 
of the people, over wMch Hon. L. B. Gunckel, Senator of that 
district, presided, at Dayton, 0., July 4, 1863, by Hon. John 
Brough, Union candidate for Governor of Ohio: 

Ladies A^'D Gentlemen : I am liappy to meet you on this anniversary 
of the Independence of the United States ; and I am happy to greet you 
with more of cheer and more of spirit, and more of feeling than I appre- 
hended a few days ago I should be able to do. I greet you with tha 
improving prospects which are before you, that the restoration of this 
country to its former unity and glory is nearer at hand than it was 
twelve months ago. [Cheers.] I thank you cordially for the greeting 
which you have extended to me to-day, and in endeavoring to occupy 
your attention for a brief period of time in the consideration of questions 
of importance at the present moment, I must ask your indulgence and 
the utmost quietude you are able to preserve, for I am not in that voice 
to-day I would desire. 

DISCUSSION OF NO ORDINARY TOPICS AT THIS TIME. 

Of course this vast audience does not anticipate that any ordinary 
topics shall be discussed to-day, so common hitherto on the Anniversaries 
of American Independence. There is one vast topic which occupies the 
mind of the people, and well it may, for it is one of such great impor- 
tance to them and their posterity, that they should carefully consider 
and carefully examine it at the present time. We are in a condition 
that twenty, or ten years ago, could hardly have been anticipated by 
any man in the country. We are in the condition of civil war; in tho 
midst of the most wicked, unprovoked and unjustifiable rebellion of 
which history has ever given record, or which has disgraced any country 
in the whole history of the world. Those of the United States that 
have remained firm and loyal, and arc resisting and endeavoring to sup- 

(3) 



4 

press this rebellion, may well say of themselves, that this is not of our 
seeking, and that we have not been parties to it. 

WHAT THE NORTH HAS ENDURED. 

Go back to the incipient history of it, or to the time it first became 
manifest, for its incipiency was of long ago ; go back to the period when 
civil war first threatened you in this land, and not only yourselves, but 
generations to come after you, will marvel at the extraordinary forbear- 
ance of the people of the north, when this vast calamity was first thrust 
upon them. A section of the country, which may be denominated, in 
general terms, the Southern States, plunged you by one single act into 
this terrible war that is now devastating the whole country and putting 
the great institutions of your fathers in peril. When men undertake a 
revolution to establish a government, they should be prepared to give 
weighty reasons for the act which they undertake. 

THERE SHOULD BE NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. 

That instrument which was read in your hearing to-day shows the 
long list of grievances our fathers bore before they separated themselves 
from the mother government; but your brethern of the Southern States 
had no such cause to aver, no such reasons to give, in justification of 
themselves for the satisfaction of mankind. For years they have been 
grumblers against imaginary violations of rights, and at last they came 
forward, and in a single moment struck with paricidal hand the govern- 
ment which had so long protected them. What had you been doing in 
the meantime? Can any man point to a single act of justice which you 
had not extended to them, or of humiliation you had not taken upon 
yourselves? Can any man point to a single grievance of theirs which 
you had not attempted to redress, or to a single obligation laid upon 
you, however injurious in its character, which you had not patiently 
borne. 

They possessed among themselves an institution peculiar in its charac- 
ter which is foreign to you ; they claimed to have received it from their 
fathers, and that they were unable to get rid of it ; they claimed that it 
continued to exist under compromises enacted by the Congress of the 
United States, and the government was responsible for it, and that you 
should aid them in bearing this cross, and in protecting this peculiar 
institution. How was that? How did you respond to them? They 
asked no guarantee that you did not grant; they asked for no fugitive 
slave law that you did not enact; they asked no enforcement of law that 
was not extended them. True, there were a few fanatics in the north 
who caused them some trouble ; but the most of the people of the north 
■were prompt to meet them upon every ground of compromise, and upon 



©very broad principle of right. So they went on until they sprung upon 
you, another feature of this institution, and that was, that in addition to 
the domestic character of Shivery which you had accorded to them, 
slavery should become a political power in this Government, and was to 
constitute a balance of power in the Union. You became nervous under 
this ; yet your statesmen came forward with concessions and compro- 
mise, that they might prevent the coming of the evil day which the.se 
parties were determined to thrust upon you. 

COMPROMISING TO SAVE THE UNION. 

Your statesmen, years ago, passed what was considered at that time an 
evil — the famous Missouri Compromise. You submitted to it. Then 
after a few years the South came forward and demanded that you should 
repeal that compi-omise and destroy the boundary line between Slavery 
and Freedom ; that you should open up to them the territories that 
they might extend the institution of slavery into free soil, provided the 
people chose to take it there. You repealed the Missouri Compromise 
and enacted the Kansas and Nebraska bill ; you gave them what they 
wanted, everything they asked, in the halls of Congress, but you didn't 
give them what they wanted in 1860, [voice, " that's so,"] namely, the 
right to continue to govern this country. 

DISAPPOINTMENT BEGETS REVENGE. 

After you had yielded to all just demands, they turned upon you and 
said : " Because you have made a sectional election of a President, we 
inaugurate rebellion, and array ourselves against the men you have 
chosen to preside over us. True the forms of the Constitution have 
been observed, true the people of the country have done everything in 
regular order, but you have taken that man from the North, and we of 
the South will rebel against him, and we will have you and yours no 
longer." 

FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT COMPROMISE, 

Still you tried to compromise ; still you pointed to the fact that, though 
a JSTorthern man was elected to the Presidency of the United States, he 
was elected, in all human probability, by the machinations of these 
Southern men ; at all events, they had committed acts which forced that 
result upon the country, and it could have been avoided if they had 
desired it. For, prior to that election there existed a party which had 
been powerful, and which had co-operated with that people in redressing 
their grievances — that had yielded to their demands upon all occasions ; 
a party that had existed from the organization of the Government, and 
while it may be said of it, that it yielded too much continually, still so 



6 

far as the people were concerned they endeavored to preserve unity — ■ 
that party of the people these leaders struck down and rendered power- 
less. They took as the ground of this rebellion the fact that a Northern 
man had been elected President by a sectional vote, and yet they refused 
to co-operate with the leaders of the Democratic party, in the election 
of the only man who could have stood the contest with any man in the 
]S"orthern States, or had the shadow of a chance of election. They 
struck this Democratic party down, because they had their plans laid, 
and had determined on their course before band — in its glory and power 
they palsied and withered it. They refused to co-operate in the election 
of any man who had any prospect of success. 

NORTHERN DEMOCRATS SPURNED AT CHARLESTON, 

They thrust in the face of its representatives in Charleston a platform 
which no delegate from the North would have dared to bring back to 
his constit\ients. Their object was to buy that party ; it was to find an 
excuse for the purpose they had beforehand determined to accomplish. 
Then followed as a necessary eonsecpence this election, by which the 
Northern States centered upon a single individual, and by which he was 
elected to the Presidency. On the other hand, except in the mortifica- 
tion of being defeated, there was not put in peril one single principle or 
right of theirs by this election. There was nothing in it that interfered 
with the civil or domestic character of the institution of Slavery. There 
was notliing that interfered with any right they had under the Constitu- 
tion or the laws of the land. The President of the United States was 
a Northern man, but of Southern birth and education, a man known to 
have been a conservative member of the old Whig party, particularly on 
} this question. But on the other hand they held a majority in the Sen- 
ate and House of Representatives of the United States ; they had a 
majority of two-thirds of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
They had all the powers of the Government in their hands, and all the 
means of protecting their rights, as they called them. Where, then, 
was their excuse, where was there a reasonable pretext for springing 
this rebellion upon us? It is shorn of all pretense, and stands naked 
and alone. And that other fact which exists in history, that the South 
for the last thirty years have been preparing for it, and waiting for an 
•opportunity to carry it out, is a further confirmation of their design. 
They would have done it four years sooner than they did, but you had 
not in the North afforded them a pretext ; and therefore, they very 
graciously gave you grace for another term, taking bond and security 
for good behavior during that time. 

They prepared themselves for the contest during that four years by 
plundering your arsenals, scattering your troops, sending your navy to 



all parts of the gloLe, and robbing your treasury. As a Democrat I 
grieve to say that a Democratic Administration stood by acquiescing in 
these things, or blindly permitting them. Then we come to the last 
period of time, and still you gave them no pretext until they adopted 
their course in regard to the election. 

THE FIRST BLOW. 

And then came the firing upon Sumter, and the general war in which 
we are now engaged. Now, in a war thus forced upon us — for fore d it 
was, and no man can deny it — under our forbearance, under our entrc. t- 
ies, under everything we could address to them, except abasement o.' 
ourselves and the surrender of every principle of honor left to us, is it 
not marvelous that there should be put the inquiry to-day, " Are we a 
united people in the redress of these wrongs, and in the prosecution of 
this war, and the conquering of peace?" Is it not marvelous that I 
stand before ycu to-day and ask that question v^hether we are united ? 
Yet the question must be put, and must be answered. And v/e stand 
here to contemplate the alarming foct, that a considerable portion of the 
people of the North are in quasi hostility to their Government, and are 
endeavoring to protract this war by giving aid and comfort to its enemies 
who are in armed rebellion against it. Why is this? 

And when I ask that question I want you, my Democratic brother, to 
answer it, for I have been with you from my first vote for Jackson to 
the last one of 1860, James Buchanan excepted — for I give thanks to 
God and take great praise that I did not vote for him. [Loud applause.] 
And as one who has been with you from that day to the present, I want 
to ask why it is that we are separated on this occasion. There was a 
time when I stood amid as great a crowd as this in Montgomery county, 
and explained what the principles of Democracy were. There was a 
time, under the administration of Mr. Polk, when I undertook to 
tell you, while we were in war with Mexico, that those opposing it 
were enemies of the Government. [Hear, hear.] Do not take it back 
now. [Applause.] 

Did I not tell you then, my Democratic brothers, that my democracy 
taught me that my duty was to my country first, and to my p;irty after- 
wards? [Applause.] And so I tell you to-day, I am for the prosecu 
tion of this war as the most certain manner for the conquering of peace 
and for the restoration of the country. [Applause.] And then when 
that is done, if I have a fight with those in power, or with any Repub- 
licans, I will settle it with them afterward, but that shall not come in 
^low. [" Good, good," and cheers.] I conceal nothing of my position. 
I tell you that I am just as rigid a Democrat to-day upon all the essen- 
tial principles that made up that Democratic party, but at the same 



8 

time I am willing to lay everything aside until we make up this differ- 
ence and save the country. 

Now, why are we differing upon this subject ? Why is it, my Democratic 
friends, that you are not prepared to give this administration, or this gov- 
ernment, (for I can not draw the fine distinction that some metaphysical 
gentlemen have drawn) your support in the suppression of the rebellion? 

THE WAR SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BEGUN. 

F' st do you answer me that the war should never have been brsgur., 
th; . we should have made compromises, and that we should have brought 
? -out a peace? • And in spite of the fact that the Southern people had 
determined that you should have this war, even if you went down upon 
your knees in the dust. Tell me why you did not have peace before this 
rebellion was inaugurated. I have told you that these men controlled 
both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, and that there was but 
a single President opposed to them, (which is not clear, but grant that,) 
and he was powerless, for the Supreme Court of the United States would 
have arrested and rendered powerless his arm any moment. 

THE PEACE CONGRESS AND WHAT IT BROUGHT FORTH 

You had a peace congress, and they brought forward a proposition 
very little different from what they presented to your delegates in the 
Charleston Convention. Could you have accepted that? If you could, 
why did not the Charleston Convention accept it? 

WHAT MR. PUQH SAYS. 

My young friend, (George E. Pugh,) who is running on the Demo- 
cratic ticket for Lieutenant-Governor, tells you in that remarkable 
speech o^ his, delivered at Columbus, that he Jcnows peace could have been 
secured and this war need not have been inaugurated. I looked through 
his speech in vain for one single ftict in proof of this assertion. Does 
my young friend expect the people of the North are going to take his 
word for it? although they would take his word as soon as that of any 
other gentlemen. I want to know upon what terms this war could have 
been prevented? Were they anything different from that which they 
presented to us as their ultimatum at the Charleston Convention? If 
they were not, why did not Mr. Pugh and his co-delegates accept the 
terms there (at Charleston Convention) and bring them home and sub- 
mit them to the Democracy of the North? I will tell you why. They 
knew that an act of that kind upon their part would lay them so low, 
and that they would be politically so dead, that the trumpet of the 
angel would never have called them to a resurrection. [Laughter and 
applause.] You could not have prevented this war by any act except 
that of utter submission to these Southern Hotspurs. 



9 

1 

NO REASON FOR REFUSING TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT. 

But pass that by. Is that any reason why we should draw back and 
•say we will not contend for the rights of the people of the North in this 
contest ? To wipe that all out they have told you over and over again 
that they will accept no terms of peace that will not recognize them an 
independent people and the withdrawal of our arms from their soil. 

PEACE CONVENTIONS AND TKE VALLANDIGHAM-PUGH CONVENTION IN 

PARTICULAR. 

Your celebrated Peace Convention of New York passed its peace reso- 
lutions, which wandered down into Dixie, and then came back to you 
spurned and spit upon. Next your Peace Convention of Ohio passed 
their resolutions, and s-ent them down to Dixie, and they were spurned 
more fiercely than those that went before, and well they might be, for 
they were not up to the New York standard. [Laughter.] Now my 
Democratic friends, how many of you have taken and read those twenty- 
three resolutions? If any, what have you found? You have found all 
of them negative in character. They are against the war, they avf 
against the prosecution of the war, they are against the administration, 
they are against military arrests, they are against military prosecutions, 
they are against everything they could find to allege against the Goverii- 
ment of the North. But there is not one line or syllable condemnatory 
of this rebellion, or of the men who put it in force. Not one single 
word! Your own government is denounced, quarreled with, and pro- 
claimed to be most tyrannical ! your own people are maligned and 
abused ; and not one word against those men who have struck down the 
best government the world ever saw, and who are seeking to perpetualt- 
an oligarchy. [Long and continued applause.] Did these leaders — 
for understand me, that when I speak of this matter I speak of leader;* 
and not of the masses, for my experience in the Democratic party is, that 
the masses are as honest as any people that ever walked on the earth — 
did these leaders, who drew up the resolutions, wish to conceal the fact 
that they were sympathizers with this rebellion, and that they wero 
opposed to putting it down ? Undoubtedly they were sympathizers, but 
they lacked the great element of character which belongs to every man 
who is a man — they lacked the courage to say so ; but they left it on 
the face of the resolutions so plain that he who runs may read. 

DUTY READ FROM PRECEDENT. 

Now you could not have prevented the war by any act, except the 
acknowledgment of all they asked and are contending for now. There 
has been no moment since in which you could have interfered and 
brought about a peace on terms that the people of the North would 



10 

admit or consider without stame. Then why is it that we can not agree 
among ourselves in laying aside party distinctions between us, and come 
up to the support of our governmC'nt as^one man for the suppression of 
the rebellion ? Do you answer me that it is because your own political 
party is not in power ; that the administration in power is not one of 
your making, and therefore you can not support it? Recollect that ques- 
tion was put in 1846; and recollect how vehemently you denounced 
the men then who said they could not support the war with Mexico, 
because there was a Democrat in the chair. 

Now you can not support this war because a Eepublican is in the 
chair. "We ought to be consistent. There is one thing wherein to fail 
to be consistent is a crime, and that is where one's actions would be in 
violation of great principles. I had no more to do in putting this 
administration in power than you, [addressed to Democrats,] and yet I 
can not hesitate to support him in crushing this rebellion. What matters 
it to me whether a man has one kind of politics or another; if he is pro- 
.secuting this war for the overthrown of rebellion, that is all we have a 
right to ask. 

riGHTING DEMOCRATS. 

While there are some acts of his administration which I can not approve, 
I can not forget the fact that every gallant man who is prosecuting the 
war in the lead of the army on the bloody plains of Pennsylvania, Ten- 
nessee or Mississippi, is a Democrat, bred and born. [Cheers.] My 
friend Thurman, in his speech the other day, said that McClellan was 
removed because he was a Democrat, while Eosecrans, who was a Repub- 
lican, was reaping all the glories of the war. [Laughter.] I am sorry 
that brother Thurman has not read history better than that. [Renewed 
laughter.] Bless your soul. Rosy has always been a Democrat, and a 
worker in the party. Very many of the men in the ranks are Demo- 
crats, and while they are fighting the battles of the country, you stay at 
home carping, and say you can not do anything because Republicans are 
at the head of the government ! That is not worthy of you. And when 
a man comes and puts that argument in your ear, you should put another 
down his throat. I leave you to determine what that should be. [Long 
and continued applause.] If you say, we shall not execute a law 
because it was not passed by a Congress which had a majority of our 
political party, how long will we remain a country? Are you prepared 
to say that any law passed by a majority of your legislature, that is not 
of your party, shall not receive your support? If you are prepared to 
say this thing by word, or thought, or act, then you are a secessionist as 
bitter as any man armed against the United States in the South. You 
are aiming at the destruction of your government, the moment you allow 
fealty to party to usurp the place of obedience to it and of the duty you 



11 

owe to the constituted authorities of the country. xVpply this principle 
to the argument made by your political leaders, and ask your o\Yn Dem- 
ocratic hearts whether you are prepared to pursue any such policy as 
that. If not, you will say, my hand and my voice are for the Union 
cause until victory is achieved. 

MILITARY ARRESTS AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

The speaker next considered the objection urged to giving the govern- 
ment support at this time, on the account of some arbitrary power in the 
arrest of pci-sons in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in which his 
argument was essentially the same as in his Marietta speech, and which 
the reporter takes the liberty to omit. He would add, however, the 
single i-emark, that Mr. Brough rendered plainer one sentence that 
occurred in that speech as printed. As it stood there, it left Mr. Brough 
as indorsing the old Eoman maxim, that the laws are silent in the pre- 
sence of arms, while on the contrai'y he did not indorse it. ILj »sald in 
his Dayton speech, that we were never prepared to inaugurate that in 
this country. But the exercise of some arbitrary power in svieh a war as 
this, was inevitable. Gentlemen on the other side talk about the viola- 
tion of the Constitution. If they come to technicalities there is not a 
soldier who, in firing his musket at a Southern rebel is violating the 
Constitution, and our authorities should gather up all the soldiers of 
the Confederacy and try them by jury. 

He drew a broad distinction between the liberty of the press and the 
licenses of free speech, which was in fact, what the peace party were con- 
tending for. In discussing this general topic, he was led to remark on the 
character of the peace party, that the effect of its course was to cripple 
the government, and render futile the cSorts and sacrifices of the soldier. 
We give his own words : 

COPPERHEADISM UNMASKED. 

Is there a man here to-day of the Democratic party who is prepared to 
Jook me coolly in the eye, and say it is part of his purpose to cripple the 
soldiers fighting our battles in the field ; to prevent enlistments for filling 
up the decimated ranks, and help the South in overthrowing this Gov- 
ernment? 

Voice— "No." 

Mr. Brough — I am glad to hear it. 

Voice — "I say no, but still I am a Vailandigham Democrat." 

Mr. Brough — Very well ; then if you are prepared to say that is not 
your purpose, ask yourself what is the eflect of your conduct, and 
answer it to your conscience and your God. Is not the eflect to pievent 
enlistments? Is not the effect ^o submit the men in the field to more 



12 

grievous wounds and greater sacrifice of life? [Loud a.pplause.] Is 
not tte effect to give aid and encouragement to the men who are fight- 
ing against us? If it is not your purpose to do this thing, then I 
implore you to turn from your course and let the world see that you are 
consistent, and not doing that which you profess not to be doing. This 
is the inevitable consequence of the measures you are inaugurating. 
Let me suppose a case : Suppose we had a Governor to-day who held 
doctrines and j^rinciples the same as enunciated by the Secession leaders 
of the Democratic party, and suppose the border of Ohio was invaded 
at Parkersburg or Marietta by the Southern army, would that Governor 
have anything else to do, than to fall back and say, " This is none of 
my. war, I will have nothing to do with this thing" — as a Democrat in 
Congress boasted, that he had voted no man and no dollar to carry on 
this war. [Great applause.] Let the war party carry on the war — " let 
the dead bur}^ the dead." With such a Governor, what would be the 
])Osition of Ohio to-day? Look at the bloody soil of Pennsylvania; 
look at the pillaged farms, and the devastation spread abroad up to the 
!ihores of the Susquehanna. If you had such a Governor he would be 
prepared to sit in his sanctuary till those same hordes ravaged the fields 
of Ohio. [Applause.] 

THE SOLDIERS SPEAKING, 

There is a voice coming back from the soldiers, not to allow this state 
of things to come to pass : and I stand here to entreat with you to-day 
— not to denounce yovt ; your right of opinion is as sacred as mine ; 
you may vote for whom you please; I have no denunciation to heap 
upon any man ; but I appeal to your conscience, as a man of reason 
«nd sense, as a man who once was a patriot if you are not now ; I appeal 
by every consideration that can reach the human heart, don't give this 
aid and encouragement to the enemies of our country ; don't strike 
down the hearts of your soldiers now when the country's peril is greater 
than ever before. 

THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH WAR. 

But you have another grievance in the prosecution of this war, and I 
approach it without any delicacy whatever. You complain that this 
war is prosecuted for the freedom of the negro. I have one word to 
say on that question. I stand where I always stood. I have for years 
.said to those on the other side of the line, your institution of Slavery is 
your own as a domestic institution. I am prepared to admit that you 
received it under the Constitution ; that it was entailed upon you, and 
you could not well get clear of it. Take your institution and keep it. 
It has educated wrongly and miserably all your people ; it has impaired 



your system of schools ; it has blighted all your fields; it has prevented 
labor and enterprise from building up your cities ; it is your curse, and 
take it and hug it to your bosom as long as you please. [Applause.] 
If you want a law to restore it to you, I am prepared to give it to you ; 
I do not seek to give it to you — I care nothing about destroying it. 
But you must not thrust it among my people as an institution of the 
land, for that I will not submit to. You must not set up the claim that 
on the admission of any Free State, a Slave State shall also be admitted 
by Congress " to preserve the balance of power." Take your institution 
and keep it, but keep it at home. Do not send it here ; we do not want 
it in its political character. 

THE POLITICAL CHARACTER OF SLAVERY MUST BE DESTROYED. 

And more than that, there grows out of this war the fact that the 
political character of the institution of Slavery has got to be wiped out 
with this rebellion. You may call me an Abolitionist, if you please, but 
I tell you the political character of this institution must be destroyed. 
You can not permit it to exist in this country, for it puts in danger the 
very existence of the Government. As Othello said of Desdemona — 
"Yet she must die, 'else she will betray more men." 

So this political institution must be destroyed. If we had peace 
to-morrow and the Union restored, and these men were to attempt to 
thrust this institution in your faces, you would have another war in less 
than six months. You could not avoid it. I hope I agree with my 
Democratic friend on that question ? [Vallandigham Democrat, " No.'"] 
I am sorry for it. If you attempt to carry this institution in the Dem- 
ocratic party in its political character, you will fail, for it was this that 
broke the back of the Democratic party in Ohio. 

DOMESTIC CHARACTER OF SLAVERY. 

About Slavery in its domestic or civil form, I have nothing to say. 
I am fully prepared to say that I do not agree with Mr. Lincoln as 
regards the propriety of issuing his Emancipation Proclamation. I 
admit there is a principle here that this Government ought to recognize. 
So long as we carried on the war on the principle we were carrying it 
on, we could not succeed. What did we do in the first twelve or fiftee:i 
months of this war? Why, we made every officer and every soldier a 
special police force to guard and protect the rebels in their slave prop- 
erty. What did we make by it? [A voice — " We got whipped by it."] 
We got cursed for it. Yes, they said we were a set of miserable, paltry 
cowards. We were trying to coax these naughty children to come back 
to papa and mamma, [laughter] and bless your soul, we protected their 
negroes everywhere. What followed ? Every negro you caught and 



14 

sent home was equal to a man or a man and a half in the rebel army. 
These men were raising corn and wheat out of which was to be produced 
the money to pay the taxes of the Confederate Government, or from 
which to levy contributions to carry on this war. It also left every able- 
bodied white man free to take his musket and go into the field. Now, 
could this thing be tolerated ? Could you prosecute a war with a people 
who had a servile race behind them to support them ? You could not 
do it. I thought with old Ben. Butler, that they should be treated as 
contraband of war. I thought it best when we came across them to say, 
"go your way in peace." As the army advanced and wanted horses, 
they took what they wanted and let the rest go. So would I do with 
the negro. 

rebels' constitutional rights. 

You say, that this violates the Constitution. Against whom? Why, 
against these men down South who are in rebellion ! [Laughter and 
applause.] Oh! Are they in rebellion by any constitutional means? 
Have they not violated the Constitution ? But you simply say to them, 

So long as you are in rebellion your slaves shall be free." Therefore, 
I did not think Mr. Lincoln wise in issuing his proclamation, because it 
poisoned the minds of the people. But the principle of striking at 
Slavery as a means of putting down the rebellion I never doubted. I 
would take their negroes as soon as their horses, or anything else our 
army required. If I wanted them in the trenches, I would put them 
there; if I didn't want them, I would say. "Go, the world is wide 
enough for me and thee." But to assert that the object of the war is to 
secure the freedom of the negroes, is false. There is no such object. 
The first gun that was fired at Sumter rung the death-knell of Slavery, 
but they did it themselves. [Applause.] Northern people did not seek 
to wage v/ar for the purpose of turning loose their slaves; but in waging 
it, they will not permit these slaves to be allies of the South, when they 
can be made allies of the North just as well. 

WHO OBJECTS TO NEGRO SOLDIERS. 

Some caviling has been made because negroes have been armed to 
fight the battles of the United States. Gentlemen, I am very indifi'erent 
how we whip these men down South. If we can do it with their slaves 
I had rather do it, than to send any more of our sons and brothers 
down there. I have no compunctions of conscience about it. "Why 
bhould their blood be saved in war more than that of tlie whites ? If 
they are willing to go, when you ain't willing to go, why should you 
ttand and cavil ? [Cries of" good, good."] Why do you want to play 
the dog in the manger with the darkey ? [Laughter.] You are not 



15 

satisfied with anything. You are not satisfied with the negro as a slave ; 
you are not satisfied with him as a freeman, and you are opposed to 
letting him fight as a soldier. I am satisfied, and there are a good many 
others of the same mind, that he should fight as a soldier. 

THE CONSCRIPTION LA"W. 

What other objections do you find against the prosecution of this war? 
You find fault with the provisions of the conscription act. I am free to 
say to you that I am not a fault-finding man, there are clauses in it to 
which I object. I object to the clause of commutation, but it is there, 
and by mistaken legislature — there without question almost in Congress, 
a few men only having deliberated upon the subject. But have you ever 
had an act of legislation not open to criticism ? And because there is an 
error in the act of legislation, are you prepared to say we will stand and 
fold our arms, and let this country go to ruin ? That is not the principle 
of the Government in which we live. Where errors exist in legislation 
we have a powerful means to correct them. That means is the ballot- 
box. If laws are wrong in principle, let us reach them by legislation. 
But in the meantime do not let the country be destroyed while we are 
quarreling over it. Would you let your house go to the flames, because 
a bucket had a wooden and not an iron handle ? Would you see your 
temple broken down and pillaged, because your legislators have not 
taken the course you would prefer they should have taken ? Would 
you let the Government be destroyed, because the means iaken to pre- 
serve it are not just such as you wished ? Men are not wise or honest, 
who thus seek to direct your actions. There are a great many things in 
this Administration which, in time of peace, I would have been quarreling 
about ; but is this a time to quarrel ? Is it a time to quarrel about your 
Generals in the field, provided that you find that they have been actuated 
by a desire to maintain the Government ? If you find this to be the 
fact, then all the errors of commission and omission should be given to 
the winds until the rebellion is crushed out, and then if you wish to 
bring them into a political campaign, I will go with you. 

PEACE, PEACE I 

But you want peace. So do I. Will any man tell me how you are 
going to get it? [Voice — "Fight for it."] That's a sensible answer; 
but I want to know if you have any other way, I want some Demo- 
cratic friend to answer. 

A voice — " The Crittenden Compromise." 

Mr. Brough. — Why didn't you take it down in Charleston I [Ap- 
plause and laughter.] But what is the Crittenden Compromise ? What 
is it but bringing Slavery throughsut the whole country. They had the 



16 

power to pass the Crittenden Compromise in Congress, if they had stood 
and fought for it. The Peace Congress offered it, but they refused it. 
I tell you, they would not take the Crittenden Compromise to-day, and 
if you argue thus, " you are keeping the word of promise to the ear, but 
breaking it to the heart." You are practicing an infernal delusion. 
These men are not fighting this war on any such principles as that, and 
they will tell the peace men in New York and Ohio through their papers 
that they will accept no terms of peace whatever — not even an armistice 
to treat for peace until the Southern Confederacy is acknowledged. Are 
you ready to acknowledge it? Are you ready to destroy the integrity 
of this Union while there is a prospect of recovering it? Then don't 
" cry peace when there is no peace." You have but the single hope of 
conquering a peace, as you did in Mexico. Will you fight this war to 
its termination and bring an honorable peace with it, or succumb to 
their terms and become subjugated yourselves ? If there is a man in 
Ohio entertains the idea of submission, I desire him to wear his laurels 
alone ; they are not for such as me and mine. [Loud applause.] There 
is but one course left : you must conquer this rebellion ; you must bring 
back the Government to its original unity ; you must humble these 
men ; you must bring them back subjugated and repentant for the 
wrongs they have done, if not actually submitted to punishment. Then 
will you be worthy, not only of the enjoyment of its special privileges 
and manifold blessings, but also to control its destiny in the great here- 
after. [Enthusiastic applause.] 



PRESIDENT LINCOLN 

ON THE 

ARREST OF C. L. VALLANDIGHAM. 



The following is tlie reply of President Lincoln to commu- 
nications of the Albany Committee of I^ew York Democrats : 

Executive Mansion, 
Washington, June 12, 1863. 
Hon. Erastus Corning and Olhers: 

Gentlemen: — Your letter of May 19, enclosing the resolutions of a 
public meeting held at Albany, New York, on the 18th of the same 
month, was received several days ago. 

The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into propositions 
— first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to 
secure peace through victory, and to support the administration in 
every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion ; and 
secondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration for sup- 
posed unconstitutional action, such as the making of military arrests. 
And, from the two propositions, a third is deduced, which is that the 
gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on doing their part to 
maintain our common government and country, despite the folly or 
wickedness, as they may conceive, of any administration. This position 
is eminently patriotic, and as such, I thank the meeting and congratu- 
late the nation for it. My own purpose is the same; so that the meeting 
and myself have a common object, and can have no difference, except in 
the choice of means or measures for effecting that object. 

And here I-ought to close this paper, and would close it if there was 
no apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely per- 
sonal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me 
for doing what, in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The resolu- 
tions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure 
to suppress the rebellion ; and I have not knowingly employed, nor 
shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolu- 

(19) 



20 

tions, assert and argue that certain military arrests, and proceedings 
following them, for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitu- 
tional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution 
the definition of treason, and the limiting safeguards and guarantees 
■therein provided for the citizen on trial for treason, and on his being 
held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, and, in criminal 
prosecutions, his right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. 
They proceed to resolve " that these safeguards of the right, of the 
citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary powers were intended more 
''specially for his protection in times of civil commotion." And appar- 
ently to demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed : " They 
were secured substantially to the English people after years of pro- 
tracted civil war, and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of 
the revolution." Vi''ould not the demonstration have been better, if it 
could have been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted and 
applied duriucf the civil wars and during our revolution, instead of 
aftrr the one and at the close of the other ? I, too, am devotedly for 
them after civil war, and he/ore civil war, and at all times, " except when 
in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require " their 
suspension. The resolutions proceeded to tell us that these safeguards 
"have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial, under our republican 
system, under circumstances which show that while they constitute the 
foundation of all free government, they are the elements of the enduring 
stability of the Republic." No one denies that they have so stood 
the test up to the beginning of the present rebellion, if we except a cer- 
tain occurrence at New Orleans ; nor does any one question that they 
will stand the same test much longer after the rebellion closes. But 
these provisions of the Constitution have no application to the ease we 
have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for trea- 
son — that is, not for the treason defined in the Constitution, and upon 
the conviction of which the punishment is death — nor yet were they 
made to hold persons to answer for any capital or otherwise infamous 
crimes; nor were the proceedings following, in any constitutional or 
legal sense, "criminal prosecutions." The arrests were made on totally 
different grounds, and the proceedings following, accorded with the 
grounds of the arrests. Let us consider the real case with which we are 
dealing, and apply to it the parts of the Constitution plainly made for 
such cases. 

Prior to my installation here, it had been inculcated that any State had 
■X lawful right to secede from the National Union, and that it would be 
expedient to exercise the right whenever the devotees of the doctrine 
should fail to alect a President to their own liking. I was elected con- 
trary to their liking; and, accordingly, so far as it was legally pcHsible, 



21 

they had taken seven States out of the Union, and seized many of the 
United States forts, and had fired upon the United States flag, all before 
I was inaugurated, and, of course, before I had done any official act 
whatever. The rebellion, thus began, soon ran into the present- civil 
war; and in certain respects, it began on very unequal terms between 
the parties. The insurgents had been preparing for it for more than 
thirty years, while the Government had taken no steps to resist them. 
The former had carefully considered all the means which could be turned 
to their account. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reliance with 
them that, in their own unrestricted efforts to destroy the Union, Con- 
stitution, and law, all together, the Government would, in great degree, 
be restrained by the same Constitution and law from arresting their 
progress. Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the Govern- 
ment, and nearly all communities of the people. From this material, 
under cover of "liberty of speech," "liberty of the press," and '^ haheas 
corpus," they hoped to keep on foot among us amost efllicient corps of spies, 
informers, suppliers, and aiders, and abettors of their cause in a thousand 
ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugurating, by the 
Constitution itself, the "habeas corpus " might be suspended; but they 
also knew they had friends who would make a question as to loho was to 
suspend it ; meanwhile their spies and others might remain at large to 
help on their cause. Or if, as has happened, the Executive should sus- 
pend the writ, without ruinous waste of time, instances of arresting 
innocent persons auight occur, as are always likely to occur in such 
cases; and then a clamor would be raised in regard to this, which might 
be at least, of some service to the insurgent cause. It needed no very 
keen perception to discover this part of the enemy's programme, so soon, 
as by open hostilities, their machinery was fairly put in motion. Yet, 
thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of indi- 
viduals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures, which by degrees I 
have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Consti- 
tution, and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better 
known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to 
such cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, 
at most, a few individuals acting in concert; and this in quiet times, 
and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of 
peace, bands of horse thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous 
and powerful for the ordinary courts of justice. But what comparison, 
in numbers, have such bands ever borne to the insurgent sympathizera 
even in many of the loyal States? Again, a jury too frequently has at 
least one member more ready to hang the panel than to hang the trai- 
tor. And yet, again, he who dissuades one man from volunteering, or 
induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as much as he 



22 

who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this discussion or inducement 
may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court 
would take cognizance. 

Ours is a case of rebellion — so called by the resolutions before me — 
in f\ict, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion ; and the provi- 
sion of the Constitution that " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 
shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, 
the public safety may require it," is the provision which specially applies 
to our present case. This provision plainly attests the understanding 
of those who made the Constitution, that ordinary courts of justice are 
inadequate to "cases of rebellion" — attest their purpose that in such 
cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary 
rules, would discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are 
proved to be guilty of defined crime ; and its suspension is allowed by 
the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who 
can not be proved to be guilty of defined crimes, "when, in cases of 
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." This is precisely 
our present case — a ease of rebellion, wherein the public safety does 
require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by process of courts, and arrests 
in cases of rebellion, do not proceed altogether upon the same basis. 
The former is directed at the small per centage of ordinary and contin- 
uous perpetration of crime, while the latter is directed at sudden and 
estensive uprisings against the Government, which, at most, will succeed 
or fail in no great length of time. In the latter case arrests are made, 
not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be 
done. The latter is. more for the preventive and less for the vindictive 
than the former. In such cases the purposes of men are much more 
easily understood than in cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands 
by and says nothing when the peril of his government is discussed, can 
not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; 
much more if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with " buts," 
and '■■ ifs" and "ands." Of how little value the constitutional provisions 
I have quoted will be rendered, if arrests shall never be made until 
defined crimes shall have been committed, may be illustrated by a 
few notable examples. Gen. John C. Breckinridge, Gen. Eobert E. 
Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William 
B. Preston, Gen. Simon B. Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buch- 
anan, now occupy the very highest places in the rebel war service, were 
all within the power of the Government since the rebellion began, and 
were nearly as well known to be traitors then as now. Unquestionably 
if we had seized and held them, the insurgent cause would have been 
much weaker. But no one of them had committed any crime defined in 
the law. Every one of them, if arrested, would have been discharged 



23 

on habeas ccrpus, were the writ allowed to operate. In view of these 
and similar cases, I tliink the time not unlikely to come when I shall 
be blamed for having made too few arrests rather than too many. 

By the third resolution the meeting indicate their opinion that mili- 
tary arrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually 
exists, but that such arrests are unconstitutional in localities where 
rebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that such 
arrests shall not be made " outside of necessary military occupation, and 
the scenes of insurrection." Inasmuch, however, as the Constitution 
itself makes no such distinction, I am unable to believe that there is any 
such constitutional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests com- 
plained of can be constitutional only when in case of rebellion or inva- 
sion, the public safety may require them ; and I insist that in such 
cases they are constitutional wherever the public safety does require 
them, as well in places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending 
as in those where it may be already prevailing ; as well where they may 
restrain mischievious intereference with the raising and supplying of 
armies to suppress the rebellion, as where the rebellion may actually be; 
as well where they may restrain the enticing men out of the army, as 
where they would prevent mutiny in the army; equally constitutional at 
all places where they will conduce to the public safety, as against the 
dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take the particular case mentioned by 
the meeting. It is asserted in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, 
by a military commander, seized and tried " for no other reason than 
words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of the 
Administration, and in condemnation of the military orders of the Gen- 
eral." Now, if there be no mistake about this; if this assertion is the 
truth and the whole truth; if there was no other reason for the arrest, 
then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I under- 
stand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avow 
his hostility to the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was 
made because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising 
of troops; to encourage desertions from the army; and to leave the 
rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not 
arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the Admin- 
istration, or the personal interests of the commanding general, but 
because he was damaging the army, upon the existence and vigor of 
which the life of the nation depends. He is warring upon the military, 
and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon 
him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the 
country, then his arrest was made on mistake of fact, which I would be 
glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory evidence. 

I understand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be 



24 

in favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force — by armies. 
Long experience has shown that armies can not be maintained unless 
desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case 
requires, and the law and the Constitution sanction this punishment. 
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not 
touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert ? This is none 
the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, 
into a public meeting, and there working upon his feelings till he is 
persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for 
a wicked administration of a contemptible Government, too weak to 
arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a ease, 
to silence the agitation and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but 
withal a great mercy. 

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies 
in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of 
rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires them, which would not 
be constitutional when, in the absence of rebellion or invasion, the public 
safety does not require them ; in other words, that the Constitution is 
not, in its application, in all respects the same, in cases of rebellion or 
invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound and 
public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction, and I 
can no more be persuaded that the Government can constitutionally 
take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown 
that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can 
be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, 
because it can not be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am 
I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting that the 
American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, 
lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, 
the law of evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus, throughout the 
indefinite peaceful future, which I trust lies before them, any more than 
I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for 
emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them 
during the remainder of his healthful life. 

In giving the resolutions the earnest consideration which you request 
of me, I can not overlook the fact that the meeting speak as " Democrats." 
Nor can I with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly 
presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be 
permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any other way 
than that they preferred to designate themselves "Democrats" rather 
than "American citizens." In this time of national peril I would have 
preferred to meet you upon a level one step higher than any party plat- 
form; because I am sure that, from such more elevated position, we 



25 

could do better battle for the country we all love tban we possibly can 
from those lower ones, where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of 
the past, and selfish hopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of 
our ingenuity and strength in finding fault with, and aiming blows at, 
each other. But, since you have denied me this, I will yet be thankful, 
for my country's sake, that not all Democrats have done so. He on 
whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried 
is a Democrat, having no old party affinity with me ; and the judge who 
rejected the constitutional views expressed in these resolutions, by refus- 
ing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas corpiis, is a Democrat of 
better days than these, having received his judicial mantle at the hands 
of President Jackson. And still more, of all those Democrats who are 
nobly exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the battle field, 
I have learned that many approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandig- 
ham, while I have not heard of a single one condemning it. I can not 
assert that there are none such. And the name of President Jackson 
recalls an instance of pertinent history. After the battle of New Or- 
leans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded 
was well known in the city, but before official knowledge of it had 
arrived. General Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, 
that it could be said the war was over, the clamor against martial law, 
which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other 
things, a Mr. Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article. 
General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel pro- 
cured the United States Judge Hall to order a writ of habeas corpus to 
relieve Mr. Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and 
the judge. A Mr. Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter 
that "it was a dirty trick." General Jackson arrested him. When the 
officer undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpus. General Jackson 
took it from him, and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge 
in custody a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his 
encampment and set him at liberty, with an order to remain till the rati- 
fication of peace should be regularly announced, or until the British 
should have left the southern coast. A day or two elapsed, the ratifica- 
tion of the treaty of peace was regulai'ly announced, and the judge and 
others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called 
General Jackson into court and fined him a thousand dollars for having 
arrested him and the others named. The general paid the fine, and 
there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded 
principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House 
of Eepresentatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the 
constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say 
whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure. 



26 

It may be remarked : First, that we had the same Constitution then 
as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have 
a case of rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the people 
to public discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the trial by 
jury, the law of evidence, and the habeas corpus, suffered no detriment 
whatever by that conduct of General Jackson, or its subsequent approval 
by the American Congress. 

And yet, let me say, that in my own discretion, I do not know 
whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While 
I can not shift the responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general 
rule, the commander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in 
any particular case. Of course, I must practice a general directory and 
revisory power in the matte:*. 

One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that arbi- 
trary arrests will have the effect to divide and distract those who should 
be united in suppressing the rebellion, and I am specifically called on to 
discharge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this as, at least, a fair appeal to 
me on the expediency of exercising a constitutional power which I think 
exists. In response to such appeal I have to say, it gave me pain when 
I learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested — that is, I was 
pained that there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting 
him — and that it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him so soon 
as I can, by any means, believe the public safety will not suffer by it. 
I further say, that as the war progresses, it appears to me, opinion and 
action, which were in great confusion at first, take shape and fall into 
more regular channels, so that the necessity for strong dealing with 
them gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it should 
cease altogether, and far from the least is my regard for the opinions 
and wishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany, declare their pur- 
pose to sustain the Government in every constitutional and lawful 
measure to suppress the rebellion. Still, I must continue to do so 
much as may seem to be required by the public safety. 

A. LINCOLN. 



PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S REPLY 



TO 



COMMITTEE OF OHIO DEMOCRATS. 



Washington, D. C, June 29, 1863. 

Gentlemen: The resolutions of fhe Ohio Democratic State Conven- 
tion, whicli you present me, together with your introductory and closing 
remarks, being in position and argument mainly the same as the resolu- 
tions of the Democratic meeting at Albany, New York, I refer you to my 
response to the latter as meeting most of the points in the former. This 
response you evidently used in preparing your remarks, and I desire no 
more than that it be used with accuracy. In a single reading of your 
remarks, I only discovered one inaccuracy in matter which I suppose 
you took from that paper. It is where you say, " the undersigned ar^ 
unable to agree with you in the opinion you have expressed, that the 
Constitution is different in time of insurrection or invasion, from what it 
is in time of peace and public security." 

A recurrence to the paper will show you that I have not expressed the 
opinion you suppose. I expressed the opinion that the Constitution is 
different in its application in cases of rebellion or invasion, involving the 
public safety, from what it is in times of profound peace and public secu- 
rity ; and this opinion I adhere to, simply because by the Constitution 
itself, things may be done in the one case which may not be done in the 
other. 

I dislike to waste a word on a merely personal point, but I must 
respectfully assure you that you will find yourselves at fault should you 
ever seek for evidence to prove your assumption that I "opposed in dis- 
cussions before the people the policy of the Mexican war." 

You say: "Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the 
power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the 
other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged." Doubt- 
less if this clause of the Constitution, improperly called as I think a 
limitation upon the power of Congress were expunged, the other guar- 
antees would remain the same ; but the question is, not how those 
guarantees would stand with that clause out of the Constitution, but 

(27) 



28 

how tliey stand with that clause remaining in it, in ease of rebellion or 
invasion, involving the public safety. If the liberty could be indulged 
of expunging that clause, letter and spirit, I really think the constitu- 
tional argument would be with you. 

My general view on this question was stated in the Albany response, 
and hence I do not state it now. I only add that, as seems to me, the 
benefit of the writ of habeas corpus is the great means through which 
the guarantees of personal liberty are conserved and made available in 
the last resort; and corroborative of this view, is the fact that Vallan- 
digham in the very case in question, under the advice of able lawyers, 
saw not where else to go, but to the habeas corpus. But by the Consti- 
tution the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus itself may be suspended 
when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it. 

You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all 
the guaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the public 
safety — when I may choose to say the public safety requires it. This 
question, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me as strug- 
gling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply a question 
who shall decide, or an afl&rmative that nobody shall decide, what public 
safety does require in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Constitution 
contemplates the question as likely to occur for decision, but it does not 
expressly declare who is to decide it. By necessary implication, when 
rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is to be made, from time to 
time; and I think the man whom, for the time, the people have, under 
the Constitution, made the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, is 
the man who holds the power and bears the responsibility of making it. 
If he uses the power justly, the same people will probably justify him; 
if he abuses it, he is in their hands, to be dealt with by the modes they 
have reserved to themselves in the Constitution. 

The earnestness with which you insist that persons can only in times 
of rebellion be lawfully dealt with, in accordance with the rules for 
criminal trials and punishments in times of peace, induces me to add a 
word to what I said on that point in the Albany response. You claim 
that men may, if they choose, embarrass those whose duty it is to combat 
a giant rebellion and then be dealt with only in turn as if there were 
no rebellion. The Constitution itself rejects this view. The military 
arrests and detentions which have been made, including those of Mr. 
Vallandigham, which are not different in principle from the others, 
have been for prevention and not for punishment — as injunctions to 
stay injury — as proceedings to keep the peace, and hence, like proceed- 
ings in such cases and for like reasons, they have not been accompanied 
with indictments, or trials by juries, nor in a single case, by any pun- 
ishment whatever beyond what is purely incidental to the prevention. 



29 

The original sentence of imprisonment in Mr. Vallandigham's case was 
to prevent injury to the military service only, and the modification of 
it was made as a less disagreeable mode to him of securing the same 
prevention. 

I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in the case of Mr. Vallan- 
digham. Quite surely nothing of this sort was or is intended. I was 
wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham was, at the time of his arrest, a 
candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor, until so informed 
by your reading to me the resolutions of your convention. I am grate- 
ful to the State of Ohio for many things, especially for the brave soldiers 
and officers she has given in the present national trial to the armies of 
the Union. 

You claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in the 
Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and this because, 
as you claim, he has not damaged the military service, by discouraging 
enlistments, encouraging desertions, or otherwise ; and that, if he had, 
he should have been turned over to the civil authorities under the recent 
acts of Congress. I. certainly do not hiow that Mr. Vallandigham has 
specifically, and by direct language, advised against enlistments, and in 
favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. We all know that combi- 
nations, armed in some instances, to resist the arrest of deserters, began 
several months ago ; that more recently the like has appeared in resis- 
tance to the enrollment preparatory to a draft ; and that quite a number 
of assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had to 
be met by military force, and this again has led to bloodshed and 
death. And now, under a sense of responsibility more weighty and 
enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief 
that this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, is 
due to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a 
greater degree than to any other cause ; and is due to him personally 
in a greater degree than to any other one man. These things have been 
notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr. Vallandigham. 
Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they originated with his special 
friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them he has fre- 
quently, if not constantly, made speeches in Congress and before popular 
assemblies, and if it can be shown that with these things staring him in 
the face, he has ever tittered a word of rebuke or counsel against them, 
it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one of which as yet, I 
am totally ignorant. When it is known that the whole burden of his 
speeches has been to stir up men against the prosecution of the war, and 
that in the midst of resistance to it, he has not been known in any 
instance to counsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to 
repel the inference that he has counseled directly in favor of it. With 



30 

all this before their eyes, the Gcnvention you represent have nominaied 
Mr. Vallandigham for Governor of Ohio; and both they and you have 
declared the purpose to sustain the National Union by all constitutional 
means. But of course they and you, in common, reserve to yourselves 
to decide what are constitutional means, and, unlike the Albany meeting, 
you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is a constitu- 
tional means of saving the Union against a rebellion, or even to intimate 
that you are conscious of an existing rebellion being in progress, with 
the avowed object of destroying that very Union. At the same tim^ you 
nominate for Governor, in whose behalf you appeal, one who is known 
to you and to the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress 
the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertions, 
resistance to the draft and the like, because it teaches those who inclina 
to desert and escape the draft to believe it is your purpose to protect 
them, and to hope that you will become strong enough to do so. After 
a personal intercourse with you, gentlemen of the Committee^ I can not 
say I think you desire this effect to follow your attitude, but I assure 
you that both friends and enemies of the Union look upon it in 
this light. It is a substantial hope, and by consequence, a real strength 
to the enemy. It is a false hope, and one which you would v^'illingIy 
dispel. I will make the way exceedingly easy. I send you duplicates 
of this letter, in order that you, or a majority of you, may, ii you choose, 
indorse your names upon one of them, and return it thus indorsed to 
me, with the understanding that those signing are lierebj committed to 
the following propositions, and to nothing else. 

1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the object and 
tendency of which is to destroy the National Union ; and that, in your 
opinion, an army and navy are constitutional means for suppressing that 
rebellion. 

2. That no one of you will do anything which, in hia own judgment, 
will tend to hinder the increase or favor the decrease, or lessen the 
efficiency of the army and navy while engaged in the effort to suppress 
the rebellion ; and, 

3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have th« 
officers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while engaged in 
the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, clad, and otherwise well 
provided and supported. 

And with the further understanding that upon receiving the letter and 
names thus indorsed, I will cause them to be published, which publica- 
tion shall be, within itself, a revocation of the order in relation to Mr. 
Vallandigham. 

It will not escape observation that I consent to the release of Mr. Val- 
landigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him or from 
others, as to what he will or will not do. I do this because he is not 
present to speak for himself, or to authorize others to speak for him ; 



31 

d hence I shall expect that on returning he would not put himself 
ictically in antagonism with the position of his friends. But I do it 
iefly because I thereby prevail ou other influential gentlemen of Ohio 
so define their position as to be of immense value to the army — thus 
ire than compensating for the consequences of any mistake in allowing 
•. Vallandighara to return, so that on the whole the public safety will 
t have suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all 
lers, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do go much as the public servie* 
y seem to require. 
I have the honor to be, respectfully yours, etc., 

A. LINCOLN. 



NATIONAL UNION ASSOCIATION 

OIF OHEIO. 



Hon. EDWARD WOODRUFF, President. 

JOSiAH KIRBY, Chairman of Executive Committee. 

HEiNRY KESSLER, Treasurer. 

JOHN D. CALDWELL, General Secretary. 



HEADQUARTERS, No. 2 BACON'S BUILDINGS, 

N. W. Corner of Sixth and Walnut Streets, 



REGULAR MEETINGS every Tuesday Evening, in Metropolitan 
Ha!i, N. E. Corner of Ninth and Walnut Streets. 



OUR COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY." 

"THE UNION— IT MUST BE PRESERVED." 



The best of loyal publications will be issued from time to 
time. Auxiliaries, Clubs or individuals can be furnished at 
low rates. 

Address, JOHN D. CALDWELL, 

Oenersil Seci'etni'y- 



Pgggg^^ONGRESS 




